<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What opportunities are there in broadcast for nonprofit news?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/</link>
	<description>A collaborative effort to figure out the future of journalism. A project of Harvard University.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:39:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: rudy</title>
		<link>http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/comment-page-1/#comment-68878</link>
		<dc:creator>rudy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=11754#comment-68878</guid>
		<description>So the free content model (broadcast TV) is dying, but the paid content model (cable) is thriving. Wow! I thought information wanted to be free.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So the free content model (broadcast TV) is dying, but the paid content model (cable) is thriving. Wow! I thought information wanted to be free.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott B</title>
		<link>http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/comment-page-1/#comment-68284</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=11754#comment-68284</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s very interesting to think of what might happen if local stations are cut loose from the networks.  Such an event would undoubtedly result in a considerable amount of consolidation among local stations.  But I believe it would also result in more, not less local news being produced by each station.  Even with the recession, local TV news is still quite profitable, by and large.  Before the recession it was ridiculously profitable (think: 50%+ profit margins).  Most of the problems faced by certain owners of local stations can be traced back to their heavy debt burden, not to problems making money from local news programming.

Increasingly, I&#039;m convinced that the future of news, on a local level, will revolve around TV.  Local TV news, despite being a bit of an anachronism and a laughingstock in the eyes of many (think: Ron Burgundy), is still stubbornly holding on to the distinction of being the way most Americans get their news.  Over the past decade or two, we saw companies like Tribune talk about the &quot;synergies&quot; that they tried to achieve by owning a TV station and a newspaper in the same city.  Those synergies never really amounted to much.  But I believe real synergies are possible if you ditch the legacy newspaper business model.  

The new Jim Brady web project at Allbritton will, I predict, leverage the existing advertising sales and newsgathering staffs in place at ABC7/NewsChannel8, while adding additional multimedia competencies and newspaper-like reporting beats.  I think it has a real potential to reveal a sustainable model for a local web site with newspaper-like reporting depth.

As for the dynamic between local stations and non-profit news orgs, I think there&#039;s tremendous potential for mutually advantageous cooperation.  I never really understood what nonprofits like ProPublica have to gain from having their stories published wholesale in the pages of newspapers, with only a small byline to show for it.  But allowing a TV reporter to piggyback off their stories seems like a more natural fit.  The nonprofit gets great exposure and publicity while still giving people a reason to go to their web site and read more, and the station gets to break a story they would have otherwise never had the resources to put together.  This sort of symbiosis is very encouraging!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s very interesting to think of what might happen if local stations are cut loose from the networks.  Such an event would undoubtedly result in a considerable amount of consolidation among local stations.  But I believe it would also result in more, not less local news being produced by each station.  Even with the recession, local TV news is still quite profitable, by and large.  Before the recession it was ridiculously profitable (think: 50%+ profit margins).  Most of the problems faced by certain owners of local stations can be traced back to their heavy debt burden, not to problems making money from local news programming.</p>
<p>Increasingly, I&#8217;m convinced that the future of news, on a local level, will revolve around TV.  Local TV news, despite being a bit of an anachronism and a laughingstock in the eyes of many (think: Ron Burgundy), is still stubbornly holding on to the distinction of being the way most Americans get their news.  Over the past decade or two, we saw companies like Tribune talk about the &#8220;synergies&#8221; that they tried to achieve by owning a TV station and a newspaper in the same city.  Those synergies never really amounted to much.  But I believe real synergies are possible if you ditch the legacy newspaper business model.  </p>
<p>The new Jim Brady web project at Allbritton will, I predict, leverage the existing advertising sales and newsgathering staffs in place at ABC7/NewsChannel8, while adding additional multimedia competencies and newspaper-like reporting beats.  I think it has a real potential to reveal a sustainable model for a local web site with newspaper-like reporting depth.</p>
<p>As for the dynamic between local stations and non-profit news orgs, I think there&#8217;s tremendous potential for mutually advantageous cooperation.  I never really understood what nonprofits like ProPublica have to gain from having their stories published wholesale in the pages of newspapers, with only a small byline to show for it.  But allowing a TV reporter to piggyback off their stories seems like a more natural fit.  The nonprofit gets great exposure and publicity while still giving people a reason to go to their web site and read more, and the station gets to break a story they would have otherwise never had the resources to put together.  This sort of symbiosis is very encouraging!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lost Remote &#124; Can non-profits help the local news void?</title>
		<link>http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/comment-page-1/#comment-67680</link>
		<dc:creator>Lost Remote &#124; Can non-profits help the local news void?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=11754#comment-67680</guid>
		<description>[...] outlets. It&#8217;s an interesting notion and it&#8217;s something to keep an eye on for 2010. At Nieman Reports, Jim Barnett asks whether non-profits can help fill &#8220;the void&#8221; that affiliates are facing, thanks to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] outlets. It&#8217;s an interesting notion and it&#8217;s something to keep an eye on for 2010. At Nieman Reports, Jim Barnett asks whether non-profits can help fill &#8220;the void&#8221; that affiliates are facing, thanks to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/01/what-opportunities-are-there-in-broadcast-for-nonprofit-news/comment-page-1/#comment-67675</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.niemanlab.org/?p=11754#comment-67675</guid>
		<description>Great idea! We&#039;ll call it &quot;public television&quot;. Unfortunately, its programming will be interrupted by pledge drives for much of the year. Half of its budget will be spent on fundraising. And it will have to produce programming with mass-appeal, so as to bring in corporate underwriters. And even then, it will struggle to support itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great idea! We&#8217;ll call it &#8220;public television&#8221;. Unfortunately, its programming will be interrupted by pledge drives for much of the year. Half of its budget will be spent on fundraising. And it will have to produce programming with mass-appeal, so as to bring in corporate underwriters. And even then, it will struggle to support itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

